The jury should have been told that it can not rely on a deliberately false statement as a piece of circumstantial evidence in
favour of the prosecution unless there was independent evidence that the statement had been made up.
The statement reads in part: «The morning of 17th of October, 2017, however resolved every unlikely doubt that could have inured
in favour of the prosecution in this saga when on being briefed by the distinguished Senator to represent him at the trial.
«If it is shown that compassion was the only driving force behind his or her actions, the fact that the suspect may have gained some benefit will not usually be treated as a factor tending in
favour of prosecution.»
Among the 16 factors tending in
favour of prosecution are considerations relating to the victim's age being under 18; the victim's mental capacity to reach an informed decision; and whether the suspect was «wholly motivated by compassion».
This sounds a plea to tilt the playing field in
favour of the prosecution.